Unrestrained?

[wd*]

Parked in Asda the other day and was just getting paperwork together (was mystery shopping) when I saw a car pull up in the parent and child space opposite. I had a good chunter to myself as I could only see three adults in the car. However, the three adults got out accompanies by 4 children - obviously some or all of these were not properly restrained, so I rang local nick to report it (*see below) but halfway through the call, before I had chance to give reg number, etc, my battery went flat. When I charged it and switched it on next morning, there was a message asking me to ring them back. I didn't, as I couldn't see the point - I had the registration number, but was obviously no longer at Asda and neither were they.

Should I ring back and give them the reg number, is there anything they would actually bother to do? Obviously they can't prove what happened that day so can't do anything about it.



(*was feeling arsey, as that morning, I had to take my little one to A&E with a neck injury, and didn't want to phone an ambulance as it wasn't an 'emergency' but at the same time I didn't want to wedge him in the car seat (he's 18 months) and risk further pain to him. I rang to find out how best to transport him within the law, as we live minutes away from hospital and was told to put him in the car seat but without the belt on - this was apparently safer than we sitting in the back holding him as I could do in taxi??)

[mybrainhurts]

If they can't come out for car theft and burglary, they're not likely to follow that up....

[shuvitupya]

wd* said:

Parked in Asda the other day .................so I rang local nick to report it

Have you nothing better to do ?

It's people like you that cause the increase in council tax.

[v6_gug]

Couldnt have put it better myself shuvitupya

[bjwoods]

I've got to2 toddler now, Adults I don't care about(they are responsible for themselves), but 3 kids need to be strapped in and not in an overloaded vehicle.

How would you feel if you seen something like this - done nothing, and then find out they all got killed... ie like that idiot woman reacenly pile 5-6 kids in a small car only 1 was restrained 9-2 in boot!) and own son. crashed and killed 3-4 of her son's firends.

B

[shuvitupya]

So would you call the cops everytime you see someone use a chainsaw without gloves or safety glasses, and everytime a child plays in the street unattended by parents, or a young girl walks alone in a park.

It's bad enough Tony Blair telling us what we can and can't do.

[wd*]

shuvitupya said:

wd* said:

Parked in Asda the other day .................so I rang local nick to report it

Have you nothing better to do ?

It's people like you that cause the increase in council tax.

My father was an undertaker, my father in law is a paramedic - perhaps you would like a chat about what it feels like to sweep up someone's child after they have been through a windscreen?

They were breaking the law - I thought that is what the police were there to deal with?

It's people like you that turn a blind eye when someone's granny is being burgled. How exactly does a phone call to the police to report a crime put council tax up? Perhaps I shouldn't have rang when heavily pregnant when someone drove into my car? Or the time it was broken into, and my entire stock stolen? Hey, I'd hate to be a burden on you

[deltafox]

wd* said:

shuvitupya said:

wd* said:

Parked in Asda the other day .................so I rang local nick to report it

Have you nothing better to do ?

It's people like you that cause the increase in council tax.

My father was an undertaker, my father in law is a paramedic - perhaps you would like a chat about what it feels like to sweep up someone's child after they have been through a windscreen?

They were breaking the law - I thought that is what the police were there to deal with?

It's people like you that turn a blind eye when someone's granny is being burgled. How exactly does a phone call to the police to report a crime put council tax up? Perhaps I shouldn't have rang when heavily pregnant when someone drove into my car? Or the time it was broken into, and my entire stock stolen? Hey, I'd hate to be a burden on you

[Kinky]

shuvitupya said:

Have you nothing better to do ?

It's people like you that cause the increase in council tax.

The lack of smilies suggests that you are being serious

I might suggest that perhaps your login name is missing a key word - which is where you can stick idiotic comments like that.

K

[bjwoods]

shuvitupya said:

So would you call the cops everytime you see someone use a chainsaw without gloves or safety glasses, and everytime a child plays in the street unattended by parents, or a young girl walks alone in a park.

It's bad enough Tony Blair telling us what we can and can't do.

no ?!

A very young girl alone, probably..

Remeber that driver that saw a 3 year old wandering, later to be found drowned..

Sod all to do with tony blair and politics by the way.

Just concerned with childrens lifes, 7 up in a car in a seatbelt, is just stupidity, no an unalienable right.

B

[smeggy]

wd* said:

They were breaking the law - I thought that is what the police were there to deal with?

Perhaps what you really meant to say was: "they were exposing others (their children) to unnecessary risk" ?

[GreenV8S]

The problem is that the level of risk is highly subjective. A few decades ago nobody bothered with seat belts. When I grew up nobody wore helmets for cycling, and I still think they look silly. In years to come you may find laws requiring crash helmets and HANS systems for all car occupants. Just because it's the law, doesn't mean that everyone will immediately agree with it. I think there's a limit to how much you should impose your own perception of risk onto other people. I know that your intention is to protect their child's interest, but it is *their* child and *their* responsibility not yours. Personally I have no problem with a couple of unrestrained kids in the back of the car for a short trip across town although I would use seat belts as a matter of course if they were available. Just as I have no problem with children being allowed to ride bikes without helmets, and all those other things we used to do as kids that no doubt would have people up in arms these days.

[tigerbear]

wd* said:

My father was an undertaker, my father in law is a paramedic - perhaps you would like a chat about what it feels like to sweep up someone's child after they have been through a windscreen?

I'm a Paramedic and I can tell you all (Hand on heart) that picking up a kiddie off of the road side or cutting them out of a car is my most hated thing about the job. You see the parent wearing a belt and you wonder why??? why didn't the parent strap them in? why didn't the parent double check? why why why??????

Next time you see the mangled body of an unrestrained child after an RTA you tell me that you won't ever report it to the BIB if you see it in the future.

Edited by tigerbear on Sunday 3rd September 16:56

[GreenV8S]

tigerbear said:

I'm a Paramedic and I can tell you all (Hand on heart) that picking up a kiddie off of the road side or cutting them out of a car is my most hated thing about the job.

I couldn't do that job, it must be heartbreaking. Despite the obvious horror when things go wrong, I hope that you will agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to protect children from all possible risk. Children always will and must get hurt from time to time. I would regard a situation where children were prevented from any and all risk as extremely unhealthy, for the children involved and for society as a whole.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

tigerbear said:

I'm a Paramedic and I can tell you all (Hand on heart) that picking up a kiddie off of the road side or cutting them out of a car is my most hated thing about the job.

I couldn't do that job, it must be heartbreaking. Despite the obvious horror when things go wrong, I hope that you will agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to protect children from all possible risk. Children always will and must get hurt from time to time. I would regard a situation where children were prevented from any and all risk as extremely unhealthy, for the children involved and for society as a whole.

But if the risk is totally unnecessary & avoidable ?
What benefit is there in the unrestrained child's journey in a car against the benefit of reduced risk of potential injury from a restrained journey in a car ?

Yes there is risk in a child playing sport, but there are also tangible health benefits. I really don't see such benefits in an unrestrained car journey.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 3rd September 17:08

[BliarOut]

vonhosen said:

GreenV8S said:

tigerbear said:

I'm a Paramedic and I can tell you all (Hand on heart) that picking up a kiddie off of the road side or cutting them out of a car is my most hated thing about the job.

I couldn't do that job, it must be heartbreaking. Despite the obvious horror when things go wrong, I hope that you will agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to protect children from all possible risk. Children always will and must get hurt from time to time. I would regard a situation where children were prevented from any and all risk as extremely unhealthy, for the children involved and for society as a whole.

But if the risk is totally unnecessary & avoidable ?
What benefit is there in the unrestrained child's journey in a car against the benefit of reduced risk of potential injury from a restrained journey in a car ?

Yes there is risk in a child playing sport, but there are also tangible health benefits. I really don't see such benefits in an unrestrained car journey.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 3rd September 17:08

What about before seat belts were invented? (yes I'm that old!) We used to travel laying in the footwells or on top of the engine in an old Beetle when we were tired. Never did us any harm

I won't be complying with the law as I believe a booster seat would make travel for my youngest more dangerous due to the design of the rear seats. The oldest is tall enough anyway. Ironic really as we never wore them but I would never let my kids travel without belting up.

[vonhosen]

BliarOut said:

vonhosen said:

GreenV8S said:

tigerbear said:

I'm a Paramedic and I can tell you all (Hand on heart) that picking up a kiddie off of the road side or cutting them out of a car is my most hated thing about the job.

I couldn't do that job, it must be heartbreaking. Despite the obvious horror when things go wrong, I hope that you will agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to protect children from all possible risk. Children always will and must get hurt from time to time. I would regard a situation where children were prevented from any and all risk as extremely unhealthy, for the children involved and for society as a whole.

But if the risk is totally unnecessary & avoidable ?
What benefit is there in the unrestrained child's journey in a car against the benefit of reduced risk of potential injury from a restrained journey in a car ?

Yes there is risk in a child playing sport, but there are also tangible health benefits. I really don't see such benefits in an unrestrained car journey.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 3rd September 17:08

What about before seat belts were invented? (yes I'm that old!) We used to travel laying in the footwells or on top of the engine in an old Beetle when we were tired. Never did us any harm

I won't be complying with the law as I believe a booster seat would make travel for my youngest more dangerous due to the design of the rear seats. The oldest is tall enough anyway. Ironic really as we never wore them but I would never let my kids travel without belting up.

That's progress.

In 1966 7,985 people were killed at a time when there were 13.3 million licenced vehicles.
In 2004 3,221 people were killed at a time when there were 32.3 million licenced vehicles.

Yes you may have survived, but there was a far greater risk of people not doing so & safety innovations & regulations have helped in reducing those unnecessary deaths.

[bigdods]

80% of accidents happen within 1 mile of home IIRC - so taking a short journey across town is exactly when they should be belted in properly

Friend of mine was killed way back when I was in college. Front seat passenger, inexperienced driver just passed his test impact with a wall at an estimated 25MPH passnger left via the front screen and died on impact. Driver was belted and didnt even get a scratch. Just because you are going slow round town doesnt make it less dangerous.

Everyone should wear a helmet on a bike - my 8 year old tried out a friends bike about 6 months ago - said friend neglected to tell him the brakes didnt work (not a friend any more!). Now I have drummed into the kids that no helmet = no bike and he had his on. This is lucky as he came to the bottom of the hill at high speed, hit the brakes and nothing happened. Ended up going head first into the front of the house impacting on the window sill. Result - 1 destroyed windowsill , 1 trashed helmet (both easily replaced) , 1 cross eyed concussed but very much still alive 8 year old (harder to replace). It is very clear from the damage caused that if he hadnt been wearing his helmet he would be dead. I recall several nasty bangs in my youth when bike riding luckily nothing so severe hence my insistence on the helmet. kids do unpredictable things - mine are particularly daring an no no fear so helmet just makes sense. And before anyone jumps in no I dont nanny them or wrap them in cotton wool. They do all the crazy stuff I did when I was a kid and we have the usual collection of scars and broken bones to prove it.

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

But if the risk is totally unnecessary & avoidable ?
What benefit is there in the unrestrained child's journey in a car against the benefit of reduced risk of potential injury from a restrained journey in a car ?

If the alternative is to not make the journey, the onus is on you to prove that the risk from making the journey outweighs the benefit from making it. I do not believe that you can prove that it *always* outweighs it.

[wd*]

GreenV8S said:

vonhosen said:

But if the risk is totally unnecessary & avoidable ?
What benefit is there in the unrestrained child's journey in a car against the benefit of reduced risk of potential injury from a restrained journey in a car ?

If the alternative is to not make the journey, the onus is on you to prove that the risk from making the journey outweighs the benefit from making it. I do not believe that you can prove that it *always* outweighs it.

In this case however, there were three adults - I presume the parents of the children and a granmother, of perhaps a friend, form looking at them. Why could one of those not have stayed at home with the children while the other two adults went shopping - no risk or law breaking then involved.

I'm not one of these people who is obsessive about the law, and I'm certainly not from the Brake brigade, but in this instance there was the bigger picture to look at - yes to them it was a quick shopping trip, however in an accident it was a family potentially losing a child, a paramedic having a heart-wrenching task.

And as for "in the good old days, etc" - I was a rear, unrestrained passenger involved in a low speed RTA when I was about 6 - I was still thrown from the back seat into the footwell. This was pulling out from a standstill onto the main road and hitting the side of a speeding vehicle. Imagine that being a bit faster? IMagine what happened when the baby was thrown from the woman's arms, or one of the children being thrown between the seats?

In the good old days there wasn't the knowledge, technology or necessity now - someone posted the statistics of how many cars are on teh road - cars that are bigger, more powerful (you could argue safer, but they are not completley indestructable) than years ago. Cycle helmets weren't invented - they were invented out of a necessity.

If a child's life is less important to these people than nipping to Asda -